State considers moving 421-a boundaries again

Some legislators will look to expand exclusion areas in their districts August 01, 2008 01:22PM

 
If the fight over the 421-a tax abatement rules seems like ancient history, guess again.

The new rules enacted by the city and state last year (and bemoaned by many real estate developers) have been in place for just a month. But state legislators are already considering changes that could make many in the industry unhappier.

As of June 30, the exclusion area, where developers must make a portion of their new projects affordable to moderate-income households in order to receive tax breaks, was greatly expanded beyond central Manhattan and Williamsburg/Greenpoint to include all of Manhattan and many neighborhoods within the other four boroughs. Brooklyn received the greatest expansion.

State Assembly Housing Committee chair Vito Lopez, D-North Brooklyn/Ridgewood, said at least seven of his colleagues want to amend the lines of the exclusion area within their districts when the Legislature comes back in session this winter. Most want to expand it, he said.

Several elected officials said they wouldn't have a problem making the exclusion area citywide or toughening the affordability requirement necessary to receive tax breaks. Assembly member Felix Ortiz, D-Sunset Park, suggested upping the affordability requirement to 40 percent of each candidate building, up from the current 20 percent.

During the recent construction boom, policymakers had re-directed the benefit — originally created in 1971 to encourage construction of multifamily dwellings — to one that would encourage construction of affordable housing.

"Yes, the market has now slowed down considerably. But as a public policy matter, if developers are receiving tax breaks to build housing, then a percentage of that housing should be affordable to the community," said Assembly member Hakeem Jeffries, D-Prospect Heights/Fort Greene. "Otherwise, the government is subsidizing the development of luxury housing."

The city's version of the bill was signed last December under the mandate that it would be reviewed regularly to respond to changing economic conditions. The state, which is required to approve the bill, passed its own, significantly more expansive version at the end of the 2007 legislative session.

The city's first review is scheduled for December, but City Council spokesperson Andrew Doba said any changes the state makes would supersede the city version.

Lopez said the state legislature would discuss changes when it is back in session, either this fall for a special session, or at the start of the regular session in January.

Industry professionals haven't taken a break lobbying for changes, though. "The industry would like to wipe out the whole bill," said Lopez. "I'm approached regularly about this."

Outside the exclusion area, developers can still receive the tax breaks without including any moderate-income housing.

The affordable breakpoints are pegged at below 60 percent of the area median income for most projects — or 90 percent of the area median income, averaged, for heavily subsidized rental projects like Atlantic Yards.

But it's questionable whether apartments outside the exclusion area would rent or sell priced above those income brackets.

Assembly member Matthew Titone, D-North Shore, said a meeting with Muss Development helped convince him to advocate taking St. George, New Brighton and Clifton — neighborhoods near the ferry terminal on Staten Island — out of the program.

Muss has owned two lots totaling 85,000 square feet near the ferry terminal for 37 years, with no imminent plans to develop them, said a company spokesperson.

Titone said last year, assembly members were given fewer than two hours to determine which portion of their district they wanted in the exclusion area, with the understanding that changes would be made later.

"Before we signed on to 421-a, [Lopez] made it very clear to me that we could amend our districts later," he said.

Many in city and state government confirmed this account. A source in city government expressed frustration at the state's quick decision-making process, given the painstaking review undertaken by a city task force that considered the market conditions and density of each neighborhood to determine if construction of new housing would be viable under the 421-a exclusion area.

Now that he's had more time to consider, Titone said he is concerned the new rules would hinder construction of new housing in St. George, which should be the "crown diamond jewel of Staten Island."

He stressed that the neighborhood already has a lot of below-market housing created under the old Mitchell-Lama program.

The city and state have also eliminated a program that allowed market-rate developers inside the exclusion zone to receive tax benefits by purchasing certificates from affordable housing developers elsewhere, say in neighborhoods like East New York and Co-op City.

Now, the below-market apartments must be on-site. Also, apartments only receive a tax exemption for the first $65,000 of assessed value.

Many industry professionals argue that toughening the 421-a rules will have the opposite of its intended effect, and will ultimately stymie construction of both affordable and market-rate housing.

Jeffries, like many opponents of the certificate program, said the program furthered economic segregation.

"I think that some legislators didn't understand the legislation," said Peter Fine, chief executive officer of the Atlantic Development Group, a leading developer of affordable housing under the old certificate program. "They didn't understand that a lot of these [neighborhoods added to the exclusion area] were marginal markets. And the fact is, the markets in those communities weren't strong enough to put market and affordable [apartments] in the same building."

There are roughly 3,800 remaining certificates that could be sold to a developer, after which no more can be produced.

Sol Arker, principal of affordable housing developer the Arker Companies, said unless the certificate program is reenacted, construction of affordable housing in outer-borough neighborhoods would grind to a halt.

He said the new rules "will require developers of affordable housing to rely upon government subsidy, as opposed to the equity that was realized from the sale of certificates."

For his part, Lopez said the state is not considering reenacting the certificate program.


Comments

George

The politicians should take a close look at the 421A office at HPD. This is the most heavy-handed, difficult, stubborn, and inflexible government agency I have ever dealt with. In addition to not communicating with 421A applicants, this office has the most arbitrary and absurd requirements, making the completion of a 421A application a nightmare. The legislature should investigate this office.

Comment #1 Posted By: George 08/03/08

Anonymous

George are you a developer?

Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 08/05/08

Mindy

The new draconian 421a laws will unquestionably drastically reduce new construction projects in the city. In fact, other incentive programs are also undergoing changes which would negatively affect the industry. Although it is tough to keep abreast of all changes in legislation and processing practices relating to such programs, for almost 30 years our firm has specialized in effectively communicating with the agencies involved. If you need help with deciphering the agencies' requests for additional information, determining eligibility for any incentive program, or moving forward an application that seems to be taking forever, email me - mindy@jackjaffa.com - will do my best to help you.

Comment #3 Posted By: Mindy 08/05/08

George

Yes, I am a developer. And, no, I don't need your assistance, Mindy, thank you. You can not possibly think that the 421A office is fair- minded, and reasonable in its practices and policies, do you? It's not difficult to decipher requests for additional info. It just boggles the mind at the frivolous and irrelevant requests made by this agency. Mindy, do you, with 30 years of experience, truly feel that the 421A office is efficient and professional?

Comment #4 Posted By: George 08/06/08

Mindy

George, it is hard to argue with the points you raise, but all agencies can be accused of bizarre requests for documents - especially those that are often impossible to obtain - the 421a dept. shouldn't be singled out for that. I agree with you in that their customer service department seriously lacks service and professionalism, but once you start communicating with members of the upper echelons within this dept., especially the more seasoned processors, you will realize that they are sympathetic to your frustrations and take the time to explain what has to be done in order to progress further. Currently the agency has hundreds of applications just sitting there without any conclusive determinations. I actually think that processing-wise, this is (arguably) the most efficient department within the agency. Not so long ago, it took them years to process a 421a case, today thanks to online filing you can get an approval in less than 2 months. Did you know that the J-51 dept. is currently reviewing cases filed in 2006? They are not even touching anything from 2007 and you can forget about 2008 applications - those will take years to approve.

Comment #5 Posted By: Mindy 08/06/08

lenny

I'm with Mindy on this, we filed 2-J51 applications and 3-421A applications less than 45 days ago. On J51 we still did not get even docket #s, but all our 421A's are already approved. The online option is amazing and requires a lot less paperwork than previously. However, our firm is still going on with protesting the newly implemented 421A laws and we are mobilizing other developers on this effort.

Comment #6 Posted By: lenny 08/06/08

Anonymous

I think in such market it is not the right thing to cut benifits

Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 08/08/08

Alex S. Vitale

The 421-A program has been a huge boondoggle. Why should the city and state be giving any subsidies to market rate housing? You've got millionaires all over the city living in tax free housing, while homelessness is at record levels. The same people who talk about the value of the "free market" when it come to rent control, come to government with their hands out every year looking for more tax breaks. The city should spend its limited resources on housing that is really affordable rather than accelerating gentrification and giving out welfare to developers. City of Disorder dot com.

Comment #8 Posted By: Alex S. Vitale 08/09/08

Doug

It will be interesting to watch when the tax benefits end for the thousands of new condo units and rental properties constructed over the last 10+ years... taxes might increase 10, 20-fold. So much for resale value. I'm sure tax certiorari attorneys will be very busy. Most new developments are not feasible without the tax breaks. In addition, the tax breaks were priced into land values, which are now falling. Meanwhile I see what appears to be an awful lot of empty new buildings, particularly in Brooklyn and Queens, with other new developments still sprouting like mushrooms all around them. Maybe the changes to the 421-a program will end up helping the city, by allowing it a healthy means of absorbing the space that's already been built (or still pending). Maybe the changes to the 421-a program should be considered a moratorium. Bring it back in 5-years.

Comment #9 Posted By: Doug 08/12/08

Darryl Jenkins

All this AFFORDABLE business is merely propaganda to show that the gov't is busy with issues that concern its citizens. Nobody ever talks about how difficult it is to obtain these "affordable units" where they have thousands of applicants for 3 affordable units in a building. Just because some of us can somehow afford to buy the remaining non-affordable units -- while barely qualifying for mortgage commitments that stretch for 30 years, where the apartment we buy ends up costing 3 times as much as the original price and yet the value of it goes down to half of the price you bought it for in the first place – doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t welcome saving a few dollars that our gov’t would end up wasting on something stupid to begin with. What’s wrong with developers getting tax breaks, don’t we as buyers eventually end up being beneficiaries of these tax breaks?

Comment #10 Posted By: Darryl Jenkins 08/12/08

SolarBrooklyn

There are empty brand new buildings in my neighborhood as well, 11223 zip code. I am as curious as Doug. What will happen to all those condos when the 15th or 25th year of tax break will near? Who will want to buy them when so many will be available for sale?

Comment #11 Posted By: SolarBrooklyn 08/15/08

Nadia

I think this 421A program is meant to give business to lawyers and consultants. I built a ten family house in Brooklyn and filed the application but the office for 421

Comment #12 Posted By: Nadia 08/20/08

Nadia

is so unhelpful. They give me answers but don't really say anything. Instead of saying"I don't know" or "Let me get back to you", they make up answers to my questions and blame me for not knowing how to file the forms. Next time I will have to pay a lawyer to do this.

Comment #13 Posted By: Nadia 08/20/08

Anonymous

hi all.. the Sheffield 57 is in this catagory..you better have a property thay is practically beach front to weather the tax abatement storm..the real tax abatement on this property is long gone..only two years now for new buyers of this ageing high rise in mid-town,before that it was ten years, or more..a property full of rent stabies....lots of brandy new buildings available....is it always about address?..even in a recession with lots of inventory that is brandy new??

Comment #14 Posted By: Anonymous 09/01/08

Leave a Comment

(optional)
(optional)

The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.